These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

120 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23829357)

  • 1. Application of the docking program SOL for CSAR benchmark.
    Sulimov AV; Kutov DC; Oferkin IV; Katkova EV; Sulimov VB
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Aug; 53(8):1946-56. PubMed ID: 23829357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Combined Approach of Patch-Surfer and PL-PatchSurfer for Protein-Ligand Binding Prediction in CSAR 2013 and 2014.
    Zhu X; Shin WH; Kim H; Kihara D
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1088-99. PubMed ID: 26691286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Target-specific native/decoy pose classifier improves the accuracy of ligand ranking in the CSAR 2013 benchmark.
    Fourches D; Politi R; Tropsha A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2015 Jan; 55(1):63-71. PubMed ID: 25521713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. CSAR Benchmark of Flexible MedusaDock in Affinity Prediction and Nativelike Binding Pose Selection.
    Nedumpully-Govindan P; Jemec DB; Ding F
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1042-52. PubMed ID: 26252196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Incorporating backbone flexibility in MedusaDock improves ligand-binding pose prediction in the CSAR2011 docking benchmark.
    Ding F; Dokholyan NV
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Aug; 53(8):1871-9. PubMed ID: 23237273
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Docking and Scoring with Target-Specific Pose Classifier Succeeds in Native-Like Pose Identification But Not Binding Affinity Prediction in the CSAR 2014 Benchmark Exercise.
    Politi R; Convertino M; Popov K; Dokholyan NV; Tropsha A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1032-41. PubMed ID: 27050767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation of GalaxyDock Based on the Community Structure-Activity Resource 2013 and 2014 Benchmark Studies.
    Shin WH; Lee GR; Seok C
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):988-95. PubMed ID: 26583962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Advances in Docking.
    Sulimov VB; Kutov DC; Sulimov AV
    Curr Med Chem; 2019; 26(42):7555-7580. PubMed ID: 30182836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Investigation on the effect of key water molecules on docking performance in CSARdock exercise.
    Kumar A; Zhang KY
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Aug; 53(8):1880-92. PubMed ID: 23617355
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. CSAR 2014: A Benchmark Exercise Using Unpublished Data from Pharma.
    Carlson HA; Smith RD; Damm-Ganamet KL; Stuckey JA; Ahmed A; Convery MA; Somers DO; Kranz M; Elkins PA; Cui G; Peishoff CE; Lambert MH; Dunbar JB
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1063-77. PubMed ID: 27149958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Solvated interaction energy (SIE) for scoring protein-ligand binding affinities. 2. Benchmark in the CSAR-2010 scoring exercise.
    Sulea T; Cui Q; Purisima EO
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Sep; 51(9):2066-81. PubMed ID: 21714553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluation of the novel algorithm of flexible ligand docking with moveable target-protein atoms.
    Sulimov AV; Zheltkov DA; Oferkin IV; Kutov DC; Katkova EV; Tyrtyshnikov EE; Sulimov VB
    Comput Struct Biotechnol J; 2017; 15():275-285. PubMed ID: 28377797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A python-based docking program utilizing a receptor bound ligand shape: PythDock.
    Chung JY; Cho SJ; Hah JM
    Arch Pharm Res; 2011 Sep; 34(9):1451-8. PubMed ID: 21975806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. GalaxyDock2: protein-ligand docking using beta-complex and global optimization.
    Shin WH; Kim JK; Kim DS; Seok C
    J Comput Chem; 2013 Nov; 34(30):2647-56. PubMed ID: 24108416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. CSAR benchmark exercise 2011-2012: evaluation of results from docking and relative ranking of blinded congeneric series.
    Damm-Ganamet KL; Smith RD; Dunbar JB; Stuckey JA; Carlson HA
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Aug; 53(8):1853-70. PubMed ID: 23548044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Incorporating replacement free energy of binding-site waters in molecular docking.
    Sun H; Zhao L; Peng S; Huang N
    Proteins; 2014 Sep; 82(9):1765-76. PubMed ID: 24549784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Lead finder: an approach to improve accuracy of protein-ligand docking, binding energy estimation, and virtual screening.
    Stroganov OV; Novikov FN; Stroylov VS; Kulkov V; Chilov GG
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Dec; 48(12):2371-85. PubMed ID: 19007114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Automated large-scale file preparation, docking, and scoring: evaluation of ITScore and STScore using the 2012 Community Structure-Activity Resource benchmark.
    Grinter SZ; Yan C; Huang SY; Jiang L; Zou X
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Aug; 53(8):1905-14. PubMed ID: 23656179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Rapid context-dependent ligand desolvation in molecular docking.
    Mysinger MM; Shoichet BK
    J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Sep; 50(9):1561-73. PubMed ID: 20735049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance.
    Perola E; Walters WP; Charifson PS
    Proteins; 2004 Aug; 56(2):235-49. PubMed ID: 15211508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.